PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO CRUZ Y DE BELEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the judgment rendered
by the Regional Trial Court at Caloocan City in Criminal Case No. C-27956, finding the
defendant-appellant Arturo Cruz y De Belen guilty of the crime of Rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the victim, Jackeelyn Eustaquio, in the amount of P25,000.00, and to pay the
costs.

The facts of the case, as
stated by the Solicitor General in his Brief, are as follows:

“On December 4, 1986,
at about noontime, the victim Jackeelyn Eustaquio, an 11-year old child (Exhibit “F”, p.
81 Record) was washing clothes in the dam located at San
Jose, Tala, Caloocan City
(pp. 3-4, TSN, January 28, 1987).  Later, on her way home, she was intercepted
by the accused-appellant Arturo Cruz y de Belen and was boxed on her left hip
(p. 5, ibid).  Then the accused pointed a
bladed weapon to (sic) her made her lie
down, removed her shorts and panty (p. 6, ibid) and placed his penis into the
vagina of the victim (p. 8, ibid).  As a
consequence, the victim bled (p. 25,
ibid) and felt pain (p. 8, ibid).  She
(the victim) sustained other injuries as shown by a medical report issued by
Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez of the Memorial Hospital (Exhibit “A”, p. 75, Record).

The victim was able to run away towards the house of Aling Letty while the accused
turned his back on her (p. 23, ibid). 
Thereafter, the accused ran towards Camarin
(pp. 25-26, ibid).  Upon reaching the
house of Aling Letty, she
informed the latter of the rape perpetrated on her and in turn, she (Aling Letty) sought help from a barangay tanod named Mang Mulong (Romulo
Galopo) who responded and chased the accused (p. 10,
ibid).  Mang Mulong approached the accused and invited him to the Tala Municipal Hall (pp. 6-7, TSN, February 10, 1987) and on searching his (accused)
body recovered a knife (p. 7, TSN, ibid). 
Later accused was transferred to the Urduja
police officer for investigation of the incident (p. 8, ibid).

The victim was brought to Tala Caloocan
Hospital for treatment (p. 11, TSN,
January 28, 1987) and later to the National Bureau of Investigation (p. 14,
ibid).

The victim was able to positively identify the accused during
custodial investigation of the accused (Exhibit “C”, p. 78,
Record).”^[1]

The defendant-appellant denied the accusation against him.  The trial court summarized his evidence, as
follows:

“That between 1:30 to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 4
December 1986 while accused Arturo Cruz y de Belen was eating at a store
located at Area D. Camarin, Caloocan
City, seven (7) baran­gay officers arrived,
apprehended him regarding a rape case and brought him in substation near Tala Hospital; that
at the substation she (sic) was confronted to by a young girl who denied
knowing her (sic); that the bladed weapon (Exh.
“H”) was recovered not on his person but was found inside her (sic) toolbox he was
carrying at the time he was apprehended; that said bladed weapon was being
used by him in his trade or occupation, he being a shoe and umbrella repairer; that he did not give written
statement to the police denying the charge against him because he has no one to
approach, likewise he did not give written statement to the inquest fiscal
because he was ashamed.”^[2]

In this appeal, the defendant-appellant contends that the crime
of Rape was not consummated because there was no penetration of the vagina of
the complainant.  In support of this
contention, the defendant-appellant cites the testimony of the NBI medico-legal
officer, who examined the com­plainant, to the effect that there were mere
congestions in the vagina of the complainant and that her hymen was intact.

The appeal is without merit. 
Complete or total penetration of the complainant’s private organ was not
necessary to consummate the crime of Rape. 
The slightest penetration was sufficient.  Neither was the rupture of the hymen
essential for the consumation of the crime.  It was enough that there was proof of
entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum.^[3]

In this case, the complainant declared that she felt pain when
the defendant-appellant put his penis inside her vagina and she bled as a
result thereof.  A portion of her
testimony reads, as follows:

“Q   You
said that you were raped, please tell the Court how you were raped?

A     ‘ANG
TETE NIYA AY NILAGAY NIYA SA ARI KO’. 
(He placed his penis in my vagina).

Q    When
you feel (sic) that his penis was placed inside your vagina, what did you feel?

A     It was painful sir.”^[4]

xxx            xxx                  xxx

“Q   Are you sure that the accused was able
to place the entirety of his penis inside your vagina?

Atty. Donavillo?

Immaterial your honor,
because there are two types of rape.  It
is also immaterial because this is statutory rape.

Court:

Overruled, witness may
answer.

A     Yes sir.

Q    What made you say so?

A     Because
I felt pain sir.

Q    Did
you bleed Jackeelyn?

A     Yes sir.”^[5]

The trial court found that the complainant testified in a direct,
firm and straightforward manner and showed no signs of insincerity or falsehood
in her actions while testifying.  We find
no reason to disbelieve the trial court. 
Besides, the defendant-appellant is a stranger to the complainant and
she had no motive whatsoever to testify falsely against him.

The testimony of the complainant is confirmed by the medical
report^[6]
of the physician at the Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital at Tala, Caloocan
City who examined the complainant
soon after the commission of the offense, which stated that the complainant
sustained “Superficial laceration, 8 o’clock
abrasion 2 o’clock on vaginal introitus.”

Complainant’s testimony is further corroborated by the NBI
medico-legal officer who testified that the labia majora
and labia minora, as well as the vestibule, of the
complainant were congested.^[7]
These congestions are actually the laceration and abrasion found earlier by the
physician of the Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital at Tala,
Caloocan City,
which were cleansed at the said hospital. 
The lesions were in the process of healing when the NBI medico-legal
officer examined the complainant the day after the commission of the offense so
that they appeared to be, and were noted down, by the NBI medico-legal officer,
as mere congestions.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.  With costs against the
defendant-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-4

^[2]
Decision, p. 3

^[3]
People vs. Aragona,
G.R. No. L-43751, 19 September 1985, 138 SCRA 569, and other cases cited therein

^[4]
tsn of 28
January 1987, p. 8

^[5]
Id., pp. 24-25

^[6]
tsn of 4 July
1987, pp. 4-5

^[7]
tsn of 14
July 1987, pp. 4-5